Legal Opinion

Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1967PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

Since we decide the trial court was in error in not allowing Highway Pavers to call, the witnesses adversely under sec. 885.14, Stats., and this case must be sent back for that purpose, we do not reach or intimate any opinion upon the merits of the determination of the status of Axt at the time of the accident for the purpose of applying the doctrine of respondeat superior.

We think the compensation carrier who paid compensation benefits to Skornia is “a person for whose immediate benefit” the action by Skornia was prosecuted, and as such is subject to have its officers, agents and employees…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bakula v. SchwabWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Kablitz v. HoeftWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Crowns v. Forest Land Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. IckeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Findorff v. FindorffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Guyette v. West Bend Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
  3. Simanek v. Miehle-Goss-DexterCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  4. Berna-Mork v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  5. Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API